David Vitter's Page at Wikipedia: Acrimony or Objectivity?

Wikipedia.com--An interesting note: I perused the page and saw not one mention that Senator Vitter serves on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. There have been a number of disputes over "NPOV," or "Neutrality Point of View." I've joined and filed a request that the page for Senator Vitter be unlocked from "semi-protection." Also expedited was a post of a comment noting the fact on Vitter's committee post:

"Agreed Captain Annoying and Journalist1983. I believe it's time to end the semi-protection, incidentally. Why? Because nobody but long-term registered users can add information. This can effectively block new information that established users may be biased towards, yet is a solid, verifiable fact. For example: not one section contains the fact that Senator Vitter is a member of a subcommittee of the Senate Foreign Relations Committe, and holds a security clearance [Ed.-Basically all elected representatives do, with few-exceptions.] It's verifiable with a quick search. As a result of Randall L. Tobias calling Ms. Palfrey's service, it's possible Vitter has committed an oversight failure. This can be proven eventually, but the basic facts are pertinent and deserve an airing. Individuals can challenge them after they've been posted for their veracity. ." [Final version, September 22nd, 2007]

It's @ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:David_Vitter#Palfrey

Here's the request post to unlock David Vitter's page so that additional information is allowable to others besides "established users" and editors:

David Vitter (edittalkhistorylinkswatchlogs)
"Locked since July [10]. Lock is preventing the addition of crucial information on Senator Vitter's seat as a member of Senate Foreign Relations Committee and the fact that he was serving on it when calls were made by Randall L. Tobias to Deborah Jeane Palfrey's Pamela Martin and Associates. This is an oversight failure on Senator Vitter's part. Addition should be allowed to at least be challenged for veracity. User:MattJanovic/MattJanovic 3:09 EST, September 20, 2007." (both the 'talk' section post and unblock request were modestly edited again after midnight by the author. Final corrections, 22nd September, 2007.)
It was @ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_page_protection (above the one for Che Guevara, how apropos)

I'm not drawing any conclusions yet, but look at the identities of some of the disputants, it's fairly telling in some areas. It's a hard call as to why Senate Ethics Committee Chair Barbara Boxer (R-Ca.) and Vice Chair Sen John Cornyn aren't moving on an ethics investigation of Sen. Vitter. Or are they? Usually ethics investigations are done "confidentially," so there could be one that's ongoing. We should be asking her and others in Congress why Sen. Vitter hasn't undergone an ethics investigation.

This is especially glaring when one considers that Sen. Larry E. Craig has been met by calls for an investigation from within his own party-ranks, even being induced to step-down from his committee and subcommittee positions. There hasn't been a peep on David Vitter being investigated.

Senator David Bruce Vitter, still being allowed to hear key testimony on September 11th, 2007 from General John Petraeus: http://vitter.senate.gov/?module=PressRoom/PressItem&ID=823a51f1-5a27-44af-82ef-87973fd52302

[Ed.-After checking Wikipedia around midnight tonight, the author discovered that a ruling has come from the board that has unblocked the article. Additions have been made, and only the facts known to the author at the time of the additions.]

[Ed., 09.13.2008--Again, I make no apologies for the additions. Bill Keisling should have made them himself, but I'm always ready to lend-a-hand in downing corrupt politicians. Politics makes for strange bedfellows. I leave it at that.]

Joe Lieberman, Larry E. Craig, David Vitter and the Rest of the Senate Republicans Continue to Stall on Reinstitution of Habeas Corpus

"The truth is that casting aside the time-honored protection of Habeas Corpus makes us more vulnerable as a nation because it leads us away from our core American values. It calls into question our historic role as a defender of human rights around the world." --Democratic Senate Judiciary Chair, Senator Patrick Leahy today (AP, 09.19.2007).

'[Habeas corpus] "is a constitutional right that has existed since the Magna Carta in 1215.' --GOP Sen. Arlen Specter, seeing the writing on the wall. (AP, 09.19.2007)

Washington D.C.--It all began before the first big washout in the November 2006 midterm elections--the one where everyone was watching too-closely, so they (the GOP) couldn't steal it. The offending piece of legislation: The Military Commissions Act of 2006, which bars 'foreign combatants' from the right to due process, or to challenge the charges against them.

What most of the media isn't reporting right now is the fact that it also effectively impairs all of our rights domestically as well, and that it sets a precedent if it stands. Guantanamo is "Act One" in suspending all of our constitutional rights, but another vote should bring cloture (no more debate, and a filibuster and veto-proofing ending the MCA). If the GOP is good for anything, it's blocking the will of the American people and the majority in the Senate.

The only other president to do this was president Abraham Lincoln, and the Supreme Court of that time ruled against him, even in-the-midst of the American Civil War. Of course, we also know what happened to Lincoln on April 15th of 1865, though it's unlikely that George W. Bush will face a similar fate--he's not worth martyring, nor worth the effort. That's got to hurt, considering his sky-high image of himself. Has he spoken with God lately? Perhaps the line is busy, or the Red Bat phone is malfunctioning. Maybe Commissioner Gordon is on vacation.

The vote was just four-away from ending the suspension of Habeas Corpus (56 yeas-43 nays), so it's likely that the next attempt will be successful. But we need to start isolating the Republican incumbents who are voting against an end to the Military Commissions Act, and writing and communicating our feelings about their votes. It's time they explained themselves, and this banging of the same drum of "fighting the war on terrorism" isn't valid. It never was. 800-years of political and legal tradition aren't endangered by foreign terrorists--they're endangered by the enemies of America within the press, Congress, and the White House.

They are the enemy within. Being the good lapdogs that they've been throughout much of this embarrassing political era, AP gives us the headline, "Senate Rejects Expanding Detainee Rights." The New York Times has done a responsible editorial, but then we get this headline: "Senate Blocks Detainees’ Rights Bill." I think we all know it's about much more than just the rights of detainees at Guantanamo Bay prison--and all the secret CIA prisons around the world that are still in-operation.

No genuine adherent of classic democratic principles should doubt the right of the detainees to adequate legal representation, but what about the rights of Americans? How do you know someone is truly guilty without reasonable due process? Our rights are impaired by the Military Commissions Act too. If we dispose of habeas corpus, then the 9/11 hijackers accomplished more than they could have ever dreamed possible, being ostensible "contractors" of the Saudi ruling-class. Reactionary politicians who used the attacks are America's real weakness, and it's time to remove more--if not all of them--in the next elections of 2008.

Their expediters are institutions like SAIC, Halliburton, Mitre, Blackwater, and individuals like the Ronald Rougheads of the world--the employees of profiteers who do the actual dirty work in the shadows. Five out of a total of forty-eight Republican Senators co-sponsored the bill to suspend the Military Commissions Act of 2006--Arlen Specter, who voted for it originally, was a primary co-sponsor with Sen. Leahy and Chris Dodd. At least Specter's learned his lesson, but could we have any more obvious indication that as a party, the GOP is against the time-honored traditions of democracy and justice that make us all 'Americans'?

Besides Mr. Specter, five other Republican Senators supported the measure. They were Chuck Hagel of Nebraska, Richard G. Lugar of Indiana, Gordon Smith of Oregon, Olympia J. Snowe of Maine and John E. Sununu of New Hampshire. Senator Bernard Sanders, independent of Vermont, also voted for it. (New York Times, 09.19.2007)

What most Americans aren't being told is that they--we--are all in danger of being legally held without any charges as long as the MCA stands. Habeas corpus is not simply applicable to "foreign combatants," but is now a deeply-impaired right for all Americans outside of the executive branch.

The Supreme Court has yet to debate and/or rule on much of this, though it's likely that the Military Commissions Act of 2006 will be voted-down on the next round in the Senate. Indeed, much o this is about ending any remaining political capital that Republicans grabbed in an obvious case of opportunism after the attacks of September 11th, 2001.

Too many Americans bought into it out of cowardice and fear. To still do so is worse than cowardice. Fortunately, we have institutions and social structures rooted in protecting our unique democratic traditions, and they've been fighting this trend before it even began in 2006. They've been on the front-lines over several decades:

The US Supreme Court agreed in June to examine the demands of war on terror suspects held without charge at Guantanamo jail. In May, more than 70 lawyers for terror suspects and academics urged lawmakers to restore the writ of habeas corpus to detainees. Critics say that the Military Commissions Act of 2006, which rolled back habeas corpus provisions, is so broad that it might apply not only to terror suspects, but also to any legal resident of the United States, if the president declares them to be an "enemy combatant." (AFP, 09.19.2007)

The scoundrels' window is almost completely closed, and their political games are beginning to evaporate. Americans are finally awaking from their fearful-stupors and understanding that few threats are so great as to give away their rights to a handful of American demagogues who thought they were so close to seizing total power.

This should be the last time anyone is allowed to get so close, and therefore, handing-out sentences to the offenders is crucial. Unlike their victims, they should be afforded due process. The irony will be understated by the press, but obvious to nearly all Americans. The world is watching.

All that said, we are hardly out of the woods yet, and the clean-up job is just beginning. Every would-be tyrant who has either suspended or attempted to end habeas corpus has met a bad end, or suffered the fate of a cursed historical judgment as a scoundrel. The right to know why one has found themselves imprisoned, what the charges against them are, and who's charging them, is a human right. It has been a beacon to countless millions throughout the world who thirst for liberty.

Now we know that the GOP's incumbents have no regard for what is uniquely American (or Anglo-American), and that they are the enemies of humanity. This should have been obvious a very long time ago, but greed tends to blind people in all societies, at any given point in human history. The enemies of liberty know this and are always waiting for their chance, their opening.

Article One, Section Nine of the Constitution of the United States is clear on the suspension of Habeas Corpus: "The Privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in Cases of Rebellion or Invasion the public Safety may require it." We're not experiencing rebellion or invasion, except from within--from the people demanding the suspension of habeas corpus. Any real external threats are both vague and hypothetical, which hardly warrants the suspension of habeas corpus. It's time to call the politicians who stalled the suspension the Military Commissions Act what they are: traitors.

“Today’s vote was a victory for those seeking to restore both the rule of law and our nation’s Constitution,” said Caroline Fredrickson, director of the ACLU Washington Legislative Office. “The Military Commissions Act of 2006 stripped away one of our most fundamental rights - to challenge your imprisonment by the government. While the amendment ultimately was not filibuster proof, a majority of senators have made it clear that they want to restore the right of habeas corpus. The ACLU has worked diligently, leading a coalition of support for the restoration of habeas corpus. That tireless work is beginning to pay off and will be vindicated once habeas is signed back into law.”The MCA stripped the constitutional right to habeas corpus from persons the president alone designates as enemy combatants. (CommonDreams.org, 09.19.2007)

Are you an "enemy combatant"? You could be if the president decides you are under the MCA. Will we find more of the supporters of the MCA in the phone records of Deborah Jeane Palfrey? We already have--Senator David Vitter voted against the reinstatement of habeas corpus, and there will be others in both houses of Congress coming. Spooks like Ronald Roughead, however, are the ones to really watch and "out." They all need the spotlight put on them brightly, and harshly, as sunlight is the best disinfectant.

Sen. Larry E. Craig--a man who likes cruising for ass with men in public bathrooms--voted "nay," as did Sen. David Vitter who prefers sex with women who aren't his wife. Sen. Saxby Chambliss of Georgia (a Republican) appears not to have voted on the measure. Senator Christopher Dodd was one of the Democrats leading the charge on this measure--and a victim of a break-in of his own campaign offices this year. All of this trumps Nixon, and handily.

AP Today: http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5iRzZPHZhjsHquqe_oN5Ndva_lauA

The Constitution of the United States of America: http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data/constitution/article01/

The New York Times today on the blocking of restoration of Habeas Corpus: http://www.nytimes.com/2007/09/19/washington/19cnd-detain.html?hp

The Actual Vote tally: http://www.firedoglake.com/2007/09/19/habeas-restoration-cloture-vote-tally/

Common Dreams on the ACLU's statement today: http://www.commondreams.org/news2007/0919-13.htm

AFP Today: http://afp.google.com/article/ALeqM5j3ClnoHoq8bxau4ENkrTgt3IBYTQ

JEFFREY A. TAYLOR: U.S. ATTORNEY IN THE PALFREY CASE AT JUSTICE, MAN OF THE HOUR

"Here, you're much closer to the casework."
--Jeffrey Taylor, Oct. 16th, 2006 to the San Diego Union-Tribune [Ed., 09.13.2008--Making me feel better about my own diction.]

Washington D.C.--Jeffrey A. Taylor is an under reported part of the U.S. Attorney scandal, and in the "Hookergate" scandal. His political credentials are well-known, and like Monica Goodling, he's served as counsel for one Alberto Gonzales. Like Tim Griffin, he was appointed by Gonzales under what was then a little-known section of the Patriot Act, surreptitiously added during a renewal of the bill on March 20th of 2006. Here's a partial-list that Common Dreams compiled in January:

Since last March, the administration has named at least nine U.S. attorneys with administration ties. None would agree to an interview. They include:

-Tim Griffin, 37, the U.S. attorney for Arkansas, who was an aide to White House political adviser Karl Rove and a spokesman for the Republican National Committee.

-Rachel Paulose, 33, the U.S. attorney for Minnesota, who served briefly as a counselor to the deputy attorney general and who, according to a former boss, has been a member of the secretive, ideologically conservative Federalist Society.

-Jeff Taylor, 42, the U.S. attorney in Washington, D.C., who was an aide to Utah Sen. Orrin Hatch and worked as a counselor to Gonzales and to former Attorney General John Ashcroft.

-John Wood, U.S. attorney in Kansas City, who's the husband of Assistant Secretary of Homeland Security Julie Myers and an ex-deputy general counsel of the White House Office of Management and Budget.

-Deborah Rhodes, 47, the U.S. attorney in Mobile, Ala., who was a Justice Department counselor.

-Alexander Acosta, 37, the U.S. attorney in Miami, who was an assistant attorney general for the Justice Department's civil rights division and a protege of conservative Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito.

-John Richter, 43, the U.S. attorney in Oklahoma City, who was the chief of staff for the Justice Department's criminal division and acting assistant attorney general.

-Edward McNally, the U.S. attorney in southern Illinois, who was a senior associate counsel to President Bush.

-Matt Dummermuth, the U.S. attorney in Iowa, who was a Justice Department civil rights lawyer.

Some of these appointees have drawn praise from local skeptics and later won Senate confirmation for permanent appointments. (CommonDreams.org, 01.27.2007)

Again, just a partial-list. That's right: Taylor worked under Ashcroft and Gonzales in different capacities. He knows the ropes of policy--and he's right at the heart of the Palfrey case. What's amazing is that he was appointed the day that her case "went into hyper drive" by AG Gonzales. This is a stunning fact, and while it doesn't prove anything conclusive, it's smoke and should be investigated by the Judiciary committees.

There could have been extraordinary reasons--besides 9/11 and terrorism--to create the ability to appoint these interim U.S. Attorneys--damage control on all-fronts, including an already compromised GOP tanking thanks to massive exposure in "Hookergate." Elements of the bureaucracy probably already knew that Palfrey was arranging the purchase of the flat in Germany by August, with some major panic over her wiring-of-funds after September 28th. From Taylor's DOJ.gov profile, in toto:

Jeffrey A. Taylor was appointed interim U.S. Attorney for the District of Columbia by Attorney General Alberto R. Gonzales on September 22, 2006. He was sworn in and took office on September 29, 2006.

From 2002 to 2006, Mr. Taylor served as Counselor to Attorney Generals John Ashcroft and Gonzales, where he handled a broad array of matters, including oversight of the Department’s national security, terrorism, and criminal litigation and policy, as well as the operations of the Department’s law enforcement components.

Mr. Taylor served as an Assistant U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of California from 1995–1999, where he prosecuted a variety of criminal matters, including international drug trafficking organizations. From 1999-2002, Mr. Taylor served as Counsel to the U.S. Senate’s Committee on the Judiciary, working on issues including criminal law, terrorism, and national security.

Mr. Taylor began his legal career as a law clerk to the Honorable John C. Mowbray, Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of Nevada, from 1991–1992, and then worked for three years in private practice. He obtained his Juris Doctor degree from Harvard Law School and his Bachelor of Arts degree from Stanford University. Mr. Taylor, and his wife, Marcia Taylor, are residents of the District of Columbia. (usdoj.gov, "Biography of US Attorney")

But what makes Jeffrey A. Taylor a real powder keg, and a truly political appointee? He's the U.S. Attorney for Washington D.C., the man who will have to expedite the subpoenas issued by Senator Patrick Leahy and Rep. John Conyers in the U.S. Attorney firing scandal. This man is going to be at the center of everything after July 9th, you can bet your paycheck on it. He was appointed to put out a lot of fires.

Jeffrey A. Taylor is one of the Bush administration's insurance policies, a brake on the rule of law now that there is no GOP majority in Congress to protect and obstruct for them. They saw the wave coming at the White House. There's a good chance Mr. Taylor will be removed from his job or resign at some point during these hearings and investigations. It's just a matter of when. If he's wise, he'll recuse himself from all of the aforementioned, including Ms. Palfrey's case.

Common Dreams, 01.27.2007: http://www.commondreams.org/headlines07/0127-01.htm

February 14th background on 14 US Attorneys serving without Senate approval: http://scoop.epluribusmedia.org/story/2007/2/14/9546/72609

Jeffrey A. Taylor's DOJ page: http://www.usdoj.gov/usao/dc/US_Attorney/index.html

TEXT-BODY OF "DC MADAM'S" APPEAL TO HOUSE & SENATE JUDICIARY COMMITTEES

CENTER FOR FORFEITURE LAW
1629 K Street, Suite 300
Washington, D.C. 20006

MONTGOMERY BLAIR SIBLEY 202-508-3699
202-478-0371 (E-FAX)
SIBLEY@CIVILFORFEITURE.COM ...

June 26, 2007

Via Fax (202) 224-9516
Honorable Patrick Leahy
Att: Kristine Lucius
Chair, Committee on the Judiciary
United States Senate
224 Dirksen Senate Office Building
Washington, DC 20510 ...


Via Fax 202-225-7680
Honorable John Conyers, Jr.
Chair, Committee on the Judiciary
U.S. House of Representatives
2138 Rayburn House Off ice Building
Washington, DC 20515

Re: Deborah Jeane Palfrey, a/k/a “The D.C. Madam” & The Civil Asset

Forfeiture Reform Act of 2000

Greetings: I write to advise your committees of the flagrant disregard by federal Judge Gladys Kessler, and the D.C. District Court of Appeals of Public Law No: 106-185, which is popularly known as the “Civil Asset Reform Act of 2000” and is codified at 18 U.S.C. §983 et seq. In particular, by enacting 18 U.S.C. §983(f) “Release Of Seized Property”, Congress imposed upon a district court a duty – within 30 days of a motion to return property – to determine if a claimant’s seized property should be “immediately” returned to her.

In Jeane’s case, on October 4, 2006, all of her real and personal property was seized by the U.S. Government upon the allegations of a confidential informant. On November 24, 2006, she made a motion pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §983(f), demanding return of her seized property thereby triggering the Congressionally-imposed thirty (30) day deadline for Judge Kessler to resolve that motion. Remarkably, Judge Kessler denied as moot Jeane's motion to return property on January 8, 2007, apparently relying upon her standing order which rendered all motions moot whenever an amended complaint is filed.

Jeane promptly moved on January 10, 2007, to vacate the January 8, 2007, order as violating the Rules Enabling Act. Additionally, having received no response to the January 10th motion, Jeane filed a second motion to return property on February 27, 2007. To date, two hundred days (200) later, Judge Kessler has not ruled on the two motions to return property and has now stayed Jeane’s forfeiture matter for six (6) months.


Honorable Patrick Leahy
Honorable John Conyers, Jr. June 26, 2007

Page 2



When Jeane sought to appeal this failure of Judge Kessler to resolve the motion to return property as §983(f) contemplates, Judge Kessler held: “[Jeane] also makes a curious argument that ‘the Court does not have jurisdiction to refuse to rule on claimant’s pending motion [to return property].’ All that can be said of this argument is that it is wrong. The Court has subject matter jurisdiction and jurisdiction over the parties; of course it has jurisdiction to enter a stay of all proceedings in the case.” In other words, Judge Kessler has decided that she can ignore §983(f)’s thirty (30) day requirement as Congress’ expression of a right contained in §983(f) is nothing more than aspirational to her.

Additionally, seeking relief from Judge Kessler blatant refusal to rule as Congress has determined appropriate by enacting the thirty (30) day ruling requirement, Jeane sought relief from the D.C. Court of Appeals on April 9, 2007. To date, the Court has refused to rule upon Jeane’s petition. Finally, yesterday the United States Supreme Court refused to address this ignoring of the statute in their Case No.: 06A1110.

As a consequence, Jeane – who property was seized last October solely upon the allegations of unidentified confidential informants – has been rendered indigent, and declared such by the district court. While she now as very competent counsel appointed to represent her in her criminal matter, she still is at the mercy of Judge Kessler for disbursements to pursue her defense, rather than have her own assets available to that end.

Simply stated, Jeane’s case highlights the continued overreaching by the Department of Justice with the complicity of the Article III actors to permit the use of the civil forfeiture process to deny basic due process rights to citizens. Such concern caused your Committees and then Congress seven years ago to address this problem with legislation including §983(f).

Yet now, Jeane’s property has been seized for over seven months without the requisite review of the propriety of such a seizure.As an attorney who practices extensively in the civil forfeiture arena, I can state that Jeane’s predicament is not unusual. Accordingly, your Committees must revisit whether CAFRA is achieving the goals it was meant to reach, or whether it is simply a set of rights without a remedy, as Jeane’s case patently demonstrates.

I am of course available to answer any questions or concerns regarding this aspect – or any other aspect of Jeane’s case. signed, [Montgomery Blair Sibley]

SUPREME COURT DENIES "DC MADAM" PALFREY STAY ON CRIMINAL PROCEEDINGS: UNCONSTITUTIONAL? ILLEGAL DECISION? PARTISAN?

J-7--Today's newsletter from Ms. Palfrey has brought information on a setback in her case. Perhaps Justice Thomas's willingness to hear the motion was another CYA affair to hide some of his own partisanship (it didn't work). No, I don't think he covered himself, Scalia or even Roberts very well:

The United States Supreme Court denied my motion (Case #06A1110) to stay the criminal proceeding and return my case to the civil courts, this morning. The motion before the Supreme Court involved a time sensitive Congressional mandate, which clearly states that individuals who have had their property seized via the civil asset forfeiture process – as I have - are to receive a hearing within 30 days, once such a motion is made. In my situation, the motion was submitted twice to the lower District Court and ignored twice by the presiding judge, Judge Gladys Kessler. I now have gone well over 200 days, since last fall without any due process in the matter.

Based upon this morning’s decision, my civil attorney, Mr. Montgomery B. Sibley will be contacting post haste Senator Patrick Lehey, Chairperson of the Senate Judiciary Committee. [Ed.-my emphasis]

The game is to keep the game going for as long as possible [Ed., 07.03.2008--particularly in Palfrey's case, but the govt. also had motives in this direction.] This all has the (ear)marks of the Bush administration's attempts at subjugating the federal bureaucracy in the aftermath of September 11th, 2001. It appears all those anti-terrorism laws have allowed for unparalleled excesses and corruption.

Part of controlling the bureaucracy--obviously--is to remove "disloyal" elements, replacing them with one's own adherents. One could call it "seeding" the organs of government with your own agents (of change--thanks Regents!).

All roads appear to lead to Rome (the Bush administration). It's time that "journalists," bloggers, citizen journalists, and all interested media start asking Edward T. Norris and Thomas DiBiagio (the first U.S. Attorney fired in the ongoing-scandal) about what they think their place in all of this is. Ignore this at your peril.

This newest development can also be read @: www.deborahjeanepalfrey.com

Postscript, 07.03.2008: Ultimately, the client and counsel would subpoena Sen. Leahy, a nutty move that was discouraged by myself and others. It would prove to be a disastrous approach that yielded nothing and cut-off any potential for redress from the legislative branch.